Delhi District Court
State vs . Balkar Singh on 8 June, 2022
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04,
DISTRICT SOUTH EAST DISTT. SAKET COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Poorva Mehra, DJS
State Vs. Balkar Singh
FIR No. 136/2004
PS. G.K.-I
U/s. 420/467/471/511 IPC
JUDGMENT
1) Case ID No. : 89218/2016
2) The date of commission of offence : 24.05.2004
3) The name & parentage of accused : Balkar Singh,
S/o Sh. Gurdayal Singh
4) Offence complained of : U/s. 420/468/471/511
IPC
5) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
6) Final order : Acquitted
7) The date of such order : 08.06.2022
Date of Institution : 04.10.2004
Judgment reserved on : 06.06.2022
Judgment announced on : 08.06.2022
FIR No. 136/2004 State Vs. Balkar Singh 1/10
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT:
1. Present case has been filed against Balkar Singh based on FIR No.136/2004 at PS G.K.-I, New Delhi-110048 U/s 420/468/471/511 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Briefly stated case of the prosecution is that a written complaint was received at PS G.K.-I, New Delhi on 24.05.2004 filed by complainant stating that he is the owner of property bearing no. S-251, G.K.-I, New Delhi-110048. He has retired from the Indian Army at the rank of Brigadiar. He is presently residing at Nainital, Uttaranchal after his retirement. Complainant was informed that accused has fabricated documents related to abovesaid property by forging signatures of complainant. Accused has also impersonated himself to be the owner of said property. Accused has also copied thumb impressions of complainant purpoting them to be thumb impressions of complainant. Using a forged GPA (General Power of Attorney), accused has sold said property further. Complainant got to know about the acts of accused when he read Public Notices printed in newspaper Statesman in the year 2003 by abovesaid buyers when complainant was in the process of selling the said property himself after getting the construction plans sanctioned from MCD. As accused impersonated to be the complainant, has signed the valuable title documents as complainant, hence, the present complaint.
3. Investigation was conducted by IO. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC. Statement of complainant was also got recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed FIR No. 136/2004 State Vs. Balkar Singh 2/10 against accused persons before court.
4. Cognizance was taken of the offences. Summons were issued to the accused. Provisions of Section 207 Cr.PC were complied with. Charges were framed against accused Balkar Singh U/s. 420/467/471/511 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Witnesses:
5. Prosecution in order to prove its case against accused, in total has examined as many as fifteen witnesses being, PW-1: Retd. Brig. HM Pant, PW-2: IO SI Ikramuddin, PW-3: Jai Narayan, PW-4: HC Jai Prakash, PW-5: Naveen, PW-6: Yashpal Ahluwalia, PW-7: Shridhar Bajaj, PW-8: Deep Aggarwal, PW-9: Pawan Kumar, PW-10: Ashok Kumar, PW-11: HC Chanderpal, PW-12: Anurag Sharma, PW-13: Naresh Juneja, PW-14: Shrikant Mahto, PW-15: Jagbir Singh.
6. Prosecution evidence was closed in the present case vide order of the Court dated 01.10.2019.
7. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded on 01.10.2019 wherein all the incriminating material on record was put to the accused persons. It was submitted by accused that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
Defence Witnesses:
8. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for defence evidence but accused FIR No. 136/2004 State Vs. Balkar Singh 3/10 chose not to lead DE and it was closed on 16.03.2022.
9. Final arguments in this case have been heard. Ld. APP for the State has brought to the attention of this court the statement of complainant and alleged buyers of the property bearing no. S-251, G.K.-I, New Delhi-
110048 and submitted that complainant has proved the prosecution case absolutely. Further, he has stated that complaint is supported by multiple documents. Also that accused took advantage of the fact that complainant was not residing at the above stated address which motivated him to enter into selling the property by standing in the shoes of present complainant who is the original owner of the said property.
10. On the other hand, Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that allegations levelled against accused are fabricated. She has questioned the prosecution case to the extent that she has raised doubt as to the identity of the present complainant being the owner of said property. She also pointed out that prosecution case suffers from multiple lacunae as the evidence put forth by prosecution proves accused is innocent. It is prayed that the accused be acquitted in this case.
Prosecution Evidence:
11. Before delving into a detailed analysis of evidence on record and the settled statutory position of law, it is pertinent to give a brief description of statement of each prosecution witness which is as follows:
12. PW-1, Retd. Brig. HM Pant, Complainant. He reiterated the case of prosecution stating that he had seen advertisement regarding Sale FIR No. 136/2004 State Vs. Balkar Singh 4/10 of his property bearing no. S-251, G.K.-I, New Delhi-110048 in the newspaper Times of India and Economic Times in September 2003. However, he also got a construction plan sanctioned from MCD and all the bills were paid by him. Subsequently, he sold the above captioned property to Sushma Khanna and CG Khanna. In the meantime, he came across Notices in the newspapers Statesman and Times of India quoting about sale of his property. Thereafter, he was contacted by buyers who were sold the said property using forged documents by accused. He also relied on the photocopies of GPA, Will and Agreement of Sale which is Ex.P1 (Colly). He also relied on Mark DX-1 and Mark DX-2 to substantiate his case.
13. PW-2, IO SI Ikramuddin. He proved the investigation conducted by him. He proved that he went to the Sub-Registrar office to verify title deeds submitted by complainant. He also proved the seizure memo vide and alleged forged documents were seized by him as Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-1/B. Further, he proved that accused received money from innocent buyers through seizure memo Ex.PW-1/C. He also proved the personal search memo of accused as Ex.PW-1/D and Ex.PW-1/E.
14. PW-3, Jai Narayan, UDC, Sub-Registrar Office. He proved the allegedly fabricated Will dated 26.05.1984 bearing no. 2086 as Ex.PW- 3/A.
15. PW-4, Jai Prakash, MHC(R), South East. He proved the FIR No. 136/2004 dated 21.05.2004 as Ex.PW-4/A.
16. PW-5, Naveen, Formal Witness from Department of Delhi FIR No. 136/2004 State Vs. Balkar Singh 5/10 Archives proved the copy of Sale Deed bearing no. 4237, Vol. No. 1148 dated 18.06.1964 as Ex.PW-5/A.
17. PW-6, Yashpal Ahluwalia turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution.
18. PW-7, Shridhar Bajaj deposed that he is the buyer who was allegedly known to PW-6 Yashpal Ahluwalia for the last 25 years. He was introduced to the accused and sale of property bearing no. S-251, G.K.-I, New Delhi was finalized for Rs.4,00,000/- out of which accused received 1.5 lakhs, 2.5 lakhs and a post dated cheque of Rs.50,000/- on multiple occasions. He identified the accused in Court.
19. PW-8, Deep Aggarwal. He was introduced to the accused by one Naresh Juneja. He identified accused in Court.
20. PW-9, Pawan Kumar is the property dealer who finalized the sale of the said property between Naresh Juneja and present accused.
21. PW-10, Ashok Kumar allegedly stood witness to the execution of documents pertaining to subsequent sales of said property. He identified the accused in Court.
22. PW-11, HC Chanderpal, Div. South West accompanied IO during investigation. He proved disclosure statement of accused as Ex.PW-1/F and personal search memo as Ex.PW-1/D and Ex.PW-1/E. He identified the accused in Court.
23. PW-12, Anurag Sharma, Assistant Director, RFSL, Chankya Puri, New Delhi proved the FSL report as Ex.PW-12/A and opined that FIR No. 136/2004 State Vs. Balkar Singh 6/10 signatures on alleged forged title deeds do not match with that of complainant.
24. PW-13, Naresh Juneja is a subsequent buyer who was conned into buying property bearing no. S-251, G.K.-I, New Delhi-110048 by accused allegedly using forged documents. He identified the accused in the Court.
25. PW-14, Shrikant Mahto, Deputy Manager, Axis Bank, Lajpat Nagar Branch proved the account statement of accused as Ex.PW-14/A bearing Account No. 126010100002493.
26. PW-15, Jagbir Singh, LDC, Record Clerk, Accessor & Collector Department, South Zone, R K Puram, New Delhi proved the mutation of property as Ex.PW-15/A. Defence Evidence:
27. Accused did not adduce any evidence in his defence despite being given opportunity.
Apreciation of Law and Evidence:
28. It is a cardinal principle of criminal law that prosecution has to prove its case against accused beyond any shadow of all reasonable doubts. The accused has a pious right of not to be convicted for an offence which is not established beyond reasonable doubts by the prosecution. The burden of proof in a criminal trial always rests upon the prosecution and the same never shifts upon the accused.
FIR No. 136/2004 State Vs. Balkar Singh 7/10
29. Prosecution in order to fulfill its duty and discharge its burden of proof has relied majorly upon testimony of complainant examined as PW-1. I have perused the deposition of complainant carefully. Even though complainant has supported the prosecution's case in his examination-in-chief, his statement is to be read cumulatively. During his cross examination, there are multiple gaps which weaken the version put forth by the prosecution. At the outset, it is apparent that complainant has admitted that the original title deeds related to property bearing no. S-251, G.K.-I, New Delhi are not on record. Though, complainant has placed on record coloured photocopies of above stated documents on the case file, IO in his testimony as PW-2 has admitted that he did not obtain the original documents related to impugned property from present complainant. It is strange that allegations of cheating and forgery have been levelled by prosecution against present accused on the foundation of stated title deeds but they are not placed on record. Second, complainant submits that he is the owner of property bearing no. S-251, G.K.-I, New Delhi, however, there is no proof of the same available on record. IO during investigation, failed to clarify the entitlement of said property which is also being claimed by accused. Tittle of complainant itself is not clear for want of substantial evidence.
30. Even if other documents available on record are looked at, it becomes apparent that complainant has not been named as the owner of the said property. This court forms its view on the basis of testimony of PW-12 Anurag Sharma, Assistant Director, RFSL, Chankya Puri, GNCTD, New Delhi who has proved the FSL report as Ex.PW-12/A FIR No. 136/2004 State Vs. Balkar Singh 8/10 wherein it is opined that signatures on said documents do not match with the signatures of complainant. Prosecution has not been bothered to place on record even an iota of evidence to justify the said discrepancy. Admittedly, it is the prosecution version that complainant did not sign the said Sale Deed at the time of its execution as he was a minor.
31. In light of contesting claims of ownership by present complainant and the accused, it was the responsibility of Investigating Officer to complete the chain of circumstantial evidence so as to establish the allegations levelled against accused, but that is not been done. Needless to say, this proves extremely damaging to the case of prosecution.
32. It is apparent from case records that accused allegedly sold the property bearing no. S-251, G.K.-I, New Delhi to buyers namely PW-6 Yashpal Ahluwalia, PW-7 Shridhar Bajaj, PW-8 Deep Aggarwal and PW-9 Pawan Kumar and PW-13 Naresh Juneja using forged documents. Out of the said PWs, PW-6 Yashpal Ahluwalia did not support the case of prosecution. Others testified that the accused attempted to sell said property for different considerations.
However, when they became aware that title to the said property is disputed, they stopped the said sale and recovered the consideration amount. These PWs have corroborated each other only to the above stated extent. But, none of them categorically deposed as to the role of accused in forging the title documents of the said property. Given the aforesaid discussion considering that these buyers were also involved in this case, why were they not made complainant in this case. Alleged misrepresentation was made to them. Based on this misrepresentation, they had transacted with accused and paid him certain amount of money FIR No. 136/2004 State Vs. Balkar Singh 9/10 which they later refused to pay due to title of the said property being disputed. Locus-standi of complainant, who has never met accused, is not beyond being questioned reasonably.
33. In light of the above discussion, prosecution case suffers from the foundational discrepancies wherein the title of the property itself is not clear. In this case, prosecution evidences suffer from serious gaps in the said chain of facts and circumstances. Consequently, this Court is bound to grant benefit of doubt to the accused.
34. Thus, Accused Balkar Singh is acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 420/467/471/511 IPC
35. At the request of accused persons, bail bonds already furnished on record sustain for the purposes of Section 437-A Cr.PC.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open (Poorva Mehra)
Court on 08.06.2022 Metropolitan Magistrate-04
SED/Saket District Courts
New Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains 10 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(Poorva Mehra)
Metropolitan Magistrate-04
SED/Saket District Courts
New Delhi
FIR No. 136/2004 State Vs. Balkar Singh 10/10